Posted
by
kdawsonon Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:49PM
from the open-means-open dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "In the aftermath of Microsoft's recent decision to contribute 20,000 lines of device driver code to the Linux community, Christopher Smart of Linux Magazine talked to Linus Torvalds and asked if the code was something he would be happy to include, even though it's from Microsoft. 'Oh, I'm a big believer in "technology over politics." I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc. issues,' says Torvalds. 'I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.' Smart asked Torvalds if Microsoft was contributing the code to benefit the Linux community or Microsoft. 'I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own itches." It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git, and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree,' says Torvalds. 'So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps them. That's the point of open source — the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the "your" in question happens to be.'"

That was a succint overview of the difference between open source and free software, though to be fair, even pragmatic free software supporters would find this new contribution by Microsoft as a positive thing.

Not really. Free Software is pretty much entirely about what you're allowed to do with the code. As long as the new code from Microsoft allows the desired freedoms (and it does) there's nothing wrong with it from a Free Software perspective.

This driver, if I understood it correctly, has no other purpose but to enable a proprietary VM to work with the kernel (correct me if I'm wrong). If I'm right, I see no reason why it should ever be included in it.

It's not a question of freedom. If MS's stuff worked half as well as unix I wouldn't care.

Ah, funny, I say the same thing about Linux. Particularly after spending numerous hours trying to get something working Linux that takes a few mouse clicks in Windows or OS X (recent examples: multiple monitors and docking stations, and reliably sharing a mobile broadband connection).

That sounds pretty ridiculous if you ask me. The Intel i8x0 graphics and sound drivers (just to name some drivers that are supposedly 'free' and 'open') are in the kernel to be able to use Intel graphics and sound chips. Last time I checked these weren't 'free' in any sense (you have to buy the chips and the IC designs are not open/free), so I fail to see why a 'free' driver for 'non-free' software would have to be excluded from the linux kernel.

Then again, I always get lost when people go over the top in their RMS-like fetish for 'pure and unquestionable freeness' of all the bits and pieces running on their systems. It's just like with the Nvidia binary-only drivers. Finally a leading GPU company decided to offer full support for their hardware, not watered down and on par with the feature set supported on Windows, and still people complain how the source code isn't open. Of course it would be nice if every piece of software and hardware on earth was 'free', but things aren't like that, just live with it. It's not like we have attained world peace, eliminated poverty and created an ecologically sustainable world economy yet, but that doesn't mean initiatives to get closer, even a little bit, are impure, wrong and should be rejected because they aren't perfect or don't apply to yourself.

That sounds pretty ridiculous if you ask me. The Intel i8x0 graphics and sound drivers (just to name some drivers that are supposedly 'free' and 'open') are in the kernel to be able to use Intel graphics and sound chips. Last time I checked these weren't 'free' in any sense (you have to buy the chips and the IC designs are not open/free), so I fail to see why a 'free' driver for 'non-free' software would have to be excluded from the linux kernel.

What's ridiculous is not seeing a difference between software and hardware. The FSF is the Free Software Foundation for a reason.

Then again, I always get lost when people go over the top in their RMS-like fetish for 'pure and unquestionable freeness' of all the bits and pieces running on their systems.

Stallman has made it abundantly clear that his view isn't that you must use only free software, but that you should use free software when there is an actual free alternative. In the case you mentioned about sound chips, there are no free sound chips (or if there are, they aren't reasonably available on motherboards). In that case, while he would wish it didn't have to be the case, Stallman would state that it's OK (in his view) to use the non-free sound chip.

While I don't follow the same ideals, they do seem much more reasonable than people seem to believe.

It's just like with the Nvidia binary-only drivers. Finally a leading GPU company decided to offer full support for their hardware, not watered down and on par with the feature set supported on Windows, and still people complain how the source code isn't open.

That's not "full support". It's only partial support. Full support, for a free software advocate, would be for the driver itself to be free. Freedom is a feature of a free operating system, and the Nvidia drivers do not support that feature.

Of course it would be nice if every piece of software and hardware on earth was 'free', but things aren't like that, just live with it. It's not like we have attained world peace, eliminated poverty and created an ecologically sustainable world economy yet, but that doesn't mean initiatives to get closer, even a little bit, are impure, wrong and should be rejected because they aren't perfect or don't apply to yourself.

I always sense a bit of hypocrisy in someone who says "quit complaining about something you don't like", in a post where they are complaining about something they don't like.

Why do you get to complain about Stallman, or free software advocates in general, but they don't get to complain about non-free software?

What's ridiculous is not seeing a difference between software and hardware. The FSF is the Free Software Foundation for a reason.

What's the difference? Free as in beer doesn't work so well for hardware but the whole point of the FSF is to give you the ability to modify your computer to meet your needs.

Hardware can be "free as in speech" and older hardware tended to be, at least as far as the interface definition went. Modern hardware is orders of magnitude more complex than early 90's hardware and the documentation for hardware interfaces has largely gone the way of the dodo - partly for competitive reasons but also partly because the cost of producing that documentation is high and the number of consumers for it is small.

Open source drivers show how the hardware is interfaced with and are very useful to the subset of people who like to tinker with their hardware.

That's funny because I had a tendency to cry. I always end up in Freedom discussions with Americans in particular. I come from Holland. This means that as soon as you hit 18 you can choose to smoke dope, frequent hookers, drink alcohol (that's from 16, really), eat shrooms, vote, have sex (that's from 16, really), have same sex sex, marry someone of any gender, have an abortion, commit euthanasia in a pinch and convert to any or no religion.

Yet we are a social-democracy. According to many Americans this seems to equal a Socialist or even Communist State. In spite of all the choices we have, we're reputed not to be "free". When I then urge these individuals to consider the range of choices they have and from what age, they tend to shrug their shoulders and tell me they're right anyhow.

The reason I bring this up in this discussion is that religious zeal, no matter what area of life it is directed at, does not listen to reason and logic. You will never get the guy who's telling you that "You're confusing choice with freedom" to see any kind of light ever.

So while I really appreciate Linus' comments on hating MicroSoft, and while I agree to his sentiment completely, there will always be these induhviduals who burrow down into their trenches about this topic even if there's really no war to speak of.

This means that as soon as you hit 18 you can choose to smoke dope, frequent hookers, drink alcohol (that's from 16, really), eat shrooms, vote, have sex (that's from 16, really), have same sex sex, marry someone of any gender, have an abortion, commit euthanasia in a pinch and convert to any or no religion.

Just can't choose your words [www.rnw.nl], or choose to own a firearm [expatica.com]. Honestly, realize you can be imprisoned for what you say.

Yet we are a social-democracy. According to many Americans this seems to equal a S

I don't claim to know what happened in your previous discussions, but I would venture to guess that people stated that Holland was Socialist not because of their social freedoms, but because of your 6%/19% VAT, your income tax that goes as high as 52%, and your "wealth tax".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Netherlands [wikipedia.org]

I gently disagree. Maybe we are just arguing semantics though. Freedom is not choice. Choice is a result of freedom, and there really is no such thing as "freedom of choice." Freedom, in American terms, is a result of "God granted" rights. (I am an atheist, but I still understand the point). The rights being, among others, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are responsibilities that the individual has to protect and live by. Therefore, you are NOT free to sell your vote (in America). That is lack of choice, but you cannot give up your responsibility, and that responsiblity is liberty/freedom. You always have choice, and you always have ability to take action. You CAN physically sell your vote, but that is not consistent with the concept of freedom. Therefore, freedom is the result of having your rights protected. Choice is simply what you want to do. When freedom exists, you certainly have more choices, but ultimately, freedom is a responsiblity, not a choice.

No kidding. When faced with explaining the unpleasant truth how OSS reduces choice (by wiping out small software companies) and therefore freedom, OSS fanbois have to redefine freedom. Let's face it, consumers don't give a rat's ass about source code -- it looks like noise to them (heck, even most geeks can't add their own feature to the OSS code). If doing something important they are going to do for months or years, few consumers will haggle over $0 vs. $50. T

It's not exactly fair to pin the blame for lack of choice exclusively on open source software. There are other factors as well. For one, we (often) have proprietary software competing in the same field, sucking up the market share from smaller enterprises. There's also the free market, which, while providing many benefits, naturally favours more popular products (like OSS), and can't sustain less popular products (like some small proprietary software). Finally, there are the people who, thanks to their bein

I know what the purpose of the code is - but I'm telling you that being allowed to run proprietary code is a freedom, which paxcoder clearly disagrees with, hence why I distinguished between his definition of freedom and what could be considered absolute freedom.

What I was trying to get across was that "x is not a valid choice" doesn't hold up very well when what x actually conforms to the 4 freedoms. He seems to be implying that the driver is only valid under those freedoms if something that uses the driver is also covered by those freedoms. So, we're in the position where he says the driver is invalid because it only has a non-free application, even though it is actually free - and I think semantics is a dangerous game to start playing here. It risks fracturing w

It's still a pretty arbitrary distinction. Everyone is clamouring for drivers for proprietary hardware (e.g. nVidia cards), but drivers for a proprietary hardware simulator are unwelcome and dirty? Whoever wants one kind of open driver and doesn't want another is probably a hypocrite, or very confused.

Because people like me will never use open soruce if it doesn't work and play well with the realities of earning a living. If you want an entirely isolated hippie utopia commune, hey, feel free, but you'll have no effect on the world of grown-ups.

Insulting ad hominem... How did this get modded 5 insightful? (Feel free not to answer. The question is rhetorical.)

I have no opinion on adding the Microsoft drivers. It's Linus's project. However, it's a mistake to discount the idealism that inspired the GNU project. Stallman could have made workarounds so his systems worked, hacked his way into a historical footnote. Instead, he chose to build his own OS based on freedom, and I think he certainly made an impact on "the world of grown-ups."

Indeed. There needs to be more IT workers out there with actual knowledge of interoperability. The organization I work for is pretty much committed to Exchange/Outlook (a good deal of money was invested long before I came along). As well, a good deal of the infrastructure is controlled via Active Directory and Group Policies. And yet, I have Samba fileservers running as member servers, Linux firewalls, OpenVPN, OpenOffice is used on a number of workstations and there are even a few Ubuntu desktops for ge

But why does anybody listen to RMS anymore? Here we see Linus giving a quite thoughtful and logical answer, which he usually does, meanwhile we have RMS coming out for crazy copyright lengths [slashdot.org] because it helps his idea of "free software". And finally let us not forget that RMS thinks it is perfectly acceptable behavior to sit on stage during a lecture, pull off his fricking socks, and EAT TOE CHEESE [youtube.com] right there on the stage!!!

Look, I'll be the first to admit that the work he did in the 1980s was VERY important in establishing the FOSS movement. But that was decades ago people. And anybody who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to pull his socks off in the middle of a lecture and eat toe funk is somebody I think we can all agree with is a few bubbles off of plumb. If we have to have a figurehead or a major voice for FLOSS, like Bill for MSFT or Steve for Apple, let it be Linus. He is incredibly smart, his answers are nearly always thought provoking without the major attitude that RMS displays (who refuses to give interviews unless you agree to use "His words" like only referring to Linux as GNULinux) and no matter which side of the free/proprietary divide you stand on Linus is able to make good points without the bad attitude.

So while I say we should respect RMS for his past contributions to FOSS, frankly he hurts a lot more than he helps anymore. Hell if I wanted to sell enterprise Windows or OSX all I would have to do is trot a video of Bill or Steve giving some heavy lecture and play that video of "Mr. Toe Cheese" side by side and say "Now which guy do YOU want having major pull on the licensing and direction the software that YOUR company is betting its business life on? Here we have Bill Gates talking File Systems and licensing issues, we have Steve Jobs on design and his "it just works" philosophy, and here we have RMS eating foot funk." The guy just becomes more "out there" every year, and with many in the Linux community wanting to see Linux become as mainstream as Windows and OSX, he certainly don't help the cause folks.

Thanks it has been awhile since I actually had to look up an argument. Notice how quick the RMS zealots downmodded me, that is funny as shit. I've got karma all day baby!

Lets be honest here folks, image matters! Does anybody actually believe that Steve Jobs is sitting there in some workshop cooking up the next iGadget? NO! But the man has presence and style, and he brings a level of cool to the company. Same as Bill had that "evil supernerd" thing going on. So who do we see all over the place representing Linux? RMS. linus has always been more low key and probably doesn't get 1/5th the press of RMS. So yeah, the fact that he thinks eating toe junk on fricking stage is cool matters. The fact that he won't give interviews unless you speak "RMS language" matters. Hell the guy even calls himself a squatter on the MIT campus [wikipedia.org]. And finally you want relevant? How about this: Linux, whose big selling point is how well it works with the web, is taking pointers from a guy who doesn't actually browse the web [lunduke.com].

Look, just because a guy once upon a time did something great does not make him a savior or expert now. Hell even Linus won't put the kernel under GPL V3 because he believes that RMS has pushed it too far. Bill and Steve couldn't ask for a better spokesman for Linux if they tried. The man just gets farther and farther from mainstream every single damned day. So the Linux guys need to ask themselves a question: Do you want a shot at the title? or do you wanna stay a niche? Because RMS is a guy that wouldn't even allow the wireless on his OLPC because it didn't have a driver that matched his "four freedoms".

And finally any guy who would allow himself to be quoted saying this [stallman.org] does NOT need to be looked upon as a major spokesman for Linux "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.". Ooooookay. Seriously, how much fucking creepier does the man have to get before the community stops listening to this dude? Notice I don't hide behind Anon coward. I don't because I think Linus is a MUCH better spokesman and once everyone stops treating RMS as all that and a bag of chips the better. RMS does nothing now but hurt the cause, especially with crap pouring out of his mouth like the above.

I think there are two separate things: rational dislike of Microsoft, and irrational hatred of Microsoft. Bot exist, and are distinct - and you will see both on/. I think that Torvalds, as the figurehead for Linux, hears more of the foaming irrational hatred than, perhaps, you do, and is responding to that. There are people who have suggested rejecting Microsoft's OSS contribution purely on the grounds that they are from Microsoft - that is the hatred side. The dislikers would accept any good quality, proprely licenced code - as Torvalds has done.

That makes sense. However, it is only one thought deep. Carry the analysis to the next level: What is Microsoft doing that causes many people to dislike the company, and is so intense that some people become irrational?

Remember, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia became irrational, also, during a famous anti-trust case against Microsoft. He violated "... the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[13]" [wikipedia.org].

That makes sense. However, it is only one thought deep. Carry the analysis to the next level: What is Microsoft doing that causes many people to dislike the company, and is so intense that some people become irrational?

I think you missed the point. Irrational hatred doesn't have a reason, that's why it's irrational. Looking for a reason for the hatred is as useless as looking for a reason why people deny the moon landing or the holocaust. The only reason is a lack of rationality.

Most open source development is a symbiotic relationship between developers. Each developer builds upon others work to create an even better work, often to fill their own needs. Few developers can carry a large project alone, so in that way, each developer relies on each other developer to bring to fruition a complete software product.

Linus is right in that most OSS development is for selfish reasons, but the net effect is a benefit to the developer community as a whole because of license requirements to share. The result is that each selfish act is inherently beneficial for the community also.

I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.

Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?

I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.

Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?

One of the biggest problems with OSS developers is short memory spans. Your description of Microsoft's history in regards to OSS was "diplomatic", moderate, and well-mannered. This is good when addressing people who aren't versed in the ongoing "struggle" between OS and proprietary software.
I, on the other hand, am willing to sound like the neck-bearded 'FLOSS' hippie:
MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.
The most important thing to remember is: Nothing has changed. They've not changed their stance on the issue, not by a micron. The only change is that they've become more subtle and press-friendly about it.

I reserve the word "hate" for extreme situations, but I will say that I do not trust Microsoft and will not develop anything that depends on any technology that they maintain, or have significant influence in.

I'd have to concur with your position. I don't hate Microsoft, but I do distrust them and do remember all the things they have said done in the past regarding FOSS. I'm not going to not accept their contributions (albeit along with making a few jokes about Hell having froze over and pigs flying...more because of their past positions than about anything else...), but in the same breath, I don't think they're even close to having convinced me that they're doing it for what they said they were- or that they're now even remotely members of the FOSS community as a whole. Linus is sort of right in that it's a problem with the "hatred"- but in the same breath, I strongly think Microsoft has wholly earned the dislike and distrust that is showing with their two releases.

There really is no call for calling them "Microshaft", "Micro$oft", and the like- they might deeply and truly deserve that, yes, but it reflects poorly on yourself and the community when you do it.

But, in the same vein, there is no good reason to even give them the time of day past thanking them for their contributions and going on. This ISN'T them any more changing their tune than them "changing it" over the last 4 or so years.

There really is no call for calling them "Microshaft", "Micro$oft", and the like- they might deeply and truly deserve that, yes, but it reflects poorly on yourself and the community when you do it.

Practically every one of us called Compuserve "Compu$erve" back in the day. Microsoft charges too much for an inferior product. The name Micro$oft is a part of geek history and an indelible entry in the lexicon. When you badmouth people who put a dollar sign in Microsoft's name, you're doing Microsoft's work for them. I hope you're getting paid, because that's otherwise ridiculous.

A troll is when you say something you don't believe, in order to elicit a desired response. I'm saying something true, and I'm being modded Troll by someone who disagrees with me. I didn't even have to advocate murder this time:P

MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.

Who, Microsoft ?Oh, you mean the *old* Microsoft !

This is the *new* Microsoft. They wouldn't do anything like that. Not at all. No sir. No way. The new Microsoft is only run by Carebears and Unicorns and rainbow coloured ponies (or so I'm told).

To be fair, Microsoft has been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporations; threatened to sue and excommunicate companies, slandering, and fired their own employees for using LOTS of non-Microsoft products.

FOSS isn't special. Microsoft does the same with anything it perceives as a threat. There have been stories of employees who use Macs getting fired; iPods and iPhones getting fired; extortion against OEMs who bundle WordPerfect, Lotus or any non-Microsoft competitor.

They haven't changed at all. They want to be on top and are willing to fight everyone and anyone who threatens them.

I'm sorry, I know I'm gonna sound like a Free Software zealot and a member of the Cult of St. IGNUcius here, but please bear with me.

Yes, its outlandish to think Microsoft makes this contribution for subversion because Richard M. Stallman has made it his main purpose in life to grant us a tool to prevent that from happening, and has fought hard for it. And that tool is the GPL.

Simply put, the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy only works if you can keep your extensions from your competitors, and prevent

You don't have to trust Microsoft. That doesn't mean you can't trust their code. That's the whole point of GPL and open source: you don't need to trust who wrote it. Once it's contributed, it's not owned by Microsoft anymore.

In 2005 Torvalds chose the politics of siding with Bitkeeper proprietor Larry McVoy over fellow coder Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell dared to write an interoperating program that was compatible with Bitkeeper API. Tridgell had figured out that by telneting to a Bitkeeper repository server and typing "help" he could get a list of relevant commands. Torvalds took McVoy's side saying Tridgell "screwed people over [theregister.co.uk]" blaming Tridgell for somehow causing McVoy to no longer allow Torvalds to use the proprietary software source code manager (as opposed to recognizing that as McVoy's choice as it was). Torvalds' arguments against software freedom come off badly for multiple reasons including how often Linux kernel hackers leverage their software freedom to continue improving that kernel. In this case where Microsoft contributes Linux code, it seems prudent to consider if a self-declared enemy of FLOSS would contribute a trojan horse to a prominent program. But this is not a consideration one can take if one views code only in terms of code quality and developmental efficiency. Given how much proprietary software is in Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel (I'm sure the Linux-libre project can tell you all the details) it seems clear that Torvalds is not as concerned with licenses as the/. quote would indicate. Nor is Torvalds apparently concerned with his users' freedom to know what code is in that fork of Linux.

The phrase "technology over politics" is also a naive position to take: it tries to frame technology and politics as non-overlapping things. In the real world no collaboration is free of politics, that includes technological collaboration. The reason the open source movement exists is because its founders wanted to break away from the older free software movement over a disagreement on politics. The open source movement argues for a technocratic developmental method aimed primarily at benefiting businesses, while the free software movement fights for social solidarity, community, and specific freedoms for all computer users.

Generally, Torvalds gets way more press than he deserves on politics. His views on the proper approach to solving certain problems with the Linux kernel might be well worth one's time to understand and abide by (particularly if one wishes to get their code into his fork of the Linux kernel). But his views in computer-related politics are so often wrong (either in framing the issue or in the side he takes) one wonders why anyone would bother to give him such heed.

I'm no fan of microsoft either however I think Linus really does have the interests of the kernel and the greater linux community at heart. I agree with him that we need to be very careful to make sure there are no potential licensing issues involved here but as long as the lawyers give it a good look and make sure there are no hidden patent claims, etc. then I think there is no reason not to include the code in the kernel.

It's really refreshing to hear some level headed comments from high profile open source guys once in a while. I tire of all of the "watch out for X!" and "Y are just out to get you!" stories, no matter how relevant they may or may not be.

It IS refreshing to hear level-headed guys say that the FOSS community will happily accept code from those who won't turn on the community and sue it. Microsoft clearly is NOT one of those entities. They have sued as recently as this year (see FAT32 and TOMTOM) and they have funded other suits in the past years (see SCO vs IBM, www.groklaw.com). Microsoft isn't a "partner". They are the snake you let into your home to embrace, extinguish, and "extend" your neck.

It would be refreshing to see their decline in sales (http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218600533) and in share value to continue. They've spent two decades making their bed -- mostly by ripping the feathers off of real contributors like Novell, Digital Equipment Corporation, etc. Let them lie in it.

Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

That's what Linus is warning against, just because you hate them doesn't mean you have to leave your rationality aside.

Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

That's what Linus is warning against, just because you hate them doesn't mean you have to leave your rationality aside.

And I distinctly remember some nice level headed comments that Linus made about Bitkeeper. We know how that turned out.

Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

Actually they (probably) can't (successfully) sue over patents, because by distributing under GPLv2 they've already granted infinite-downstream permission to run/use/tweak what they distributed. Which logically must include permission to use any patents they might have that would cover what they distributed.

RMS is going to helicopter out of his grave. 'The Ride of the Valkyries' is going to start playing and innocent civilians will be killed. Theo will say he loves the smell of 'Fresh Napalm in the Morning'. Mark my words.

I mostly agree with him, but just to be anal (nerdly prerogative)... Stupid, irrational fanboyism isn't really a disease, it's just tribalism. We're apes. We choose some stupid tribe to identify with, be it PS3 or XBox or Windows or Linux or Mac whatever and death to all outsiders. The more underdog the group, the more rabid the members are (Linux, Mac, Amiga). Religion is one of the best, if not the best, strategies for cementing loyalty and killing all competitors, so it shouldn't be a surprise that even something as secular as this takes on strongly religious overtones.

Not so strangely, as Linux continues to spread its influence the fanbase is getting less stupidly polarized (but then the old guard entrenches further, to combat this 'threat'). Generally this eases up as you get older and your penis stops ruling your brain, but not always.

I don't think we are trying to become a tribe. I think we are trying to undo the decades of abuse Microsoft preyed on us using their monopoly.

What many of you don't understand here is that Linus has been desperately seeking to have Microsoft write programs for Linux to validate his efforts for at least a decade. He even said that if they do then he's won.

I think Linus doesn't understand much outside his purview. He hasn't really focused on what affects our pocketbooks, our future, and our goals. We want to have applications and game developers write their product for Linux. But when you have a company that threatens the industry with 235 alleged patent violations and then shuts down OpenGL support, then stacks the deck with DRM (at the core of the OS), and then says that they will kill Linux by such and such a year. Well, there's reason for the hatred. The community wants untainted product so that in the years when Microsoft is in serious decline they can't keep coming back holding a knife to the community's throat in an effort to stave off their own demise (which is inevitable).

I dislike many things, spinach is one of them, and yet I have a disease because I hate it? Likewise with other foods and other things. I tend to dislike those that rip me off, yet I am suffering a disease due to that dislike?

The guy really needs to know when to open his mouth and when not to. For instance, he should talk less about disease and more about how to make Linux a better product and to speak with influence to those hardware vendors and software vendors to create an environment where we can just do our own things and not be influenced by Microsoft.

If you simply dislike spinach, you don't have a disease. If your dislike of spinach, however, makes you start a massive campaign calling spinach evil and saying nobody should eat it, then yes, you have a disease.

Microsoft is sharing its stuff because they were caught red handed.This 'sharing' is a good thing, but it isn't the merit of Microsoft, it is a merit of the GPL.Some people still don't want to realise this.If Linus will ever use this Microsoft code, he can thank this to the license he chose years ago, he couldn't do the same now if he started Linux using the BSD license.

Linus isn't an "alternative" to Stallman. Linus is a brilliant software engineer who's been successfully leading one of the most prominent software projects of our time. He's not a messianic fuhrer figure with a follower cult, and I've never seen him pretending to be one.

Ironic this story is coming from kdawson. He's like the Fox News guy from Slashdot.
The story doesn't have to be true if it garners a ton of posts.
His stories about MS are often shallow, w/ summary full of some perceived slight often having nothing to do with the story. This often induces a feeding frenzy as MS haters who take the bait goes. My only reason why this continues is that these bring a lot of ad revenue to Slashdot.

The best example went to court where Fox argued that there was "nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization"; the Florida Appeals court agreed with that statement.

As a result, Fox and all other US news organizations are fully within their right (in Florida at least) to make up anything they want.

I think its quite healthy to dislike ( ok, hate ) an entity whose stated goal is to wipe you from the face of the earth. We arent talking about some bully in a school yard, we are talking about a well funded organized corporation that wants you eradicated..

When you're dealing with the fallout of various microsoft tech failures at work around you, buggy worm ridden OS, buggy worm ridden web server, buggy non compliant browser, etc. it's hard to remain professional. It was OK to mess with DOM implementations in IE4's day but not IE7. >/

It is an acquired distaste. The fact is, nearly everyone here who hates Microsoft for various reasons once loved and admired Microsoft. The love was eroded and destroyed by Microsoft's own actions and choices. For me, it was the way it intentionally abused "partners" by various means (especially) including some tactics such as forcing partners to fail in their contracts and then claiming whatever work was done by the partners. In particular, a story about a mobile phone maker who partnered with Microsoft where the agreement was that if the company failed to meet specific terms and deadlines, the partnership would dissolve and Microsoft would claim whatever IP that existed. Well, as it turned out, the other company needed something from Microsoft which it did not deliver, causing the deal to go bad and then Microsoft came in to claim whatever they wanted leaving the other company with nothing. That was a particularly dirty and rather deliberate act on their part and this was no isolated incident... there are others; many others.

It's not that Linux or any other alternative is a Microsoft "opponent" for many of us. It's that Microsoft is simply evil in much of what they do. They do things that are difficult for many to believe or understand and they most certainly play dirty and illegally.

It is an acquired distaste. The fact is, nearly everyone here who hates Microsoft for various reasons once loved and admired Microsoft.

I got my first exposure to MS products in 1988. I had no opinion of them either way at the time. Over the last two decades, 'indifference' has turned into a deep contempt and loathing for the company and its products.

I'm guessing that given who Linus is and what he does for a living, he hasn't worked with MS's crap in quite some time, or else he wouldn't have made the statement he did...

Hatred of Microsoft has nothing at all to do with the virtue of the alternatives. If there was nothing but Microsoft anything to use, Microsoft would still be hated. Bell telephone was quite hated when there were no alternatives simply because of the abuses it put people through. Microsoft is an extremely abusive company and hasn't faced competition is nearly 20 years. Linux isn't a challenger and wasn't born of hating Microsoft either. Microsoft and those who love, support and admire Microsoft might see all others as challengers, but that is not truly where why others exist or have existed. In fact, that particular view is one of the reasons why Microsoft is so contemptible. They tend to view everyone and everything else as a challenger and do whatever they can to keep then down. Linux started as a school project, for god's sake. OS/2 was born of IBM with the enlisted help of Microsoft before Microsoft ripped off IBM. Apple..? You tell me why Apple has never made it into the business enterprise despite its quality and serious users. DR-DOS existed because someone thought they could do it better... and pretty much did until Microsoft wrote Windows in such a way that it denied DR-DOS access. The list is longer than I know to be sure. But none of them existed as an "enemy" of Microsoft... it's just that Microsoft saw them that way and attacked.

While we all love to 'bash' Microsoft and its tactics here, on occasion, please let' s not lose sight as to why they released this code. They did so because it contained both open and closed source components and were issuing them with both a closed and open source license. Those who aren't 'new around here' know that licensing them in this fashion is a violation of the GPLv2 terms. So basically they did this to avoid any 'repercussions' from the community -not that that would stop anyone anyway- and not out of a sense of 'contribution' to the FOSS movement. Ramji and the legal department at Microsoft probably had one of those 'Oh, SNAP!' moments and decided it was best to look like benefactors than the 'evil hive of scum and villainy' that most people perceive them as.

I don't hate Microsoft, in fact I've done quite a few implementations of Exchange and SharePoint and AD for companies in the past.

But I do understand that they're a typical scumbag corporate giant acting the way scumbag corporate giants do - trying to make it so that you HAVE to buy their product because you have no other choice.

So now I make sure that I don't become dependent on that product by actively avoiding it wherever possible - which means my home family machine, my personal laptops, and my work machine all run Ubuntu quite happily. And when people ask me how I do it, I happily show them so they know they have that option too. Does it involve sacrifice? Yes, a little bit, and less every day. But it also involves great advantages, namely that I don't have to worry much at all about my wife and kids visiting the wrong Web site (and that's all it takes!) and getting our family machine rooted nine ways to Sunday, leading to my bank accounts being emptied out. That's really the stakes here.

Could I spend all my time positively hating Microsoft and all that they do? Yes, I could, but I'd rather spend my time making sure they don't matter to me. Recently I read an article about Microsoft's change in the upgrade rules, meaning you have to jump through more hoops to do a bare install from an upgrade CD. In the past, I would have been ticked off and hated Microsoft more. Now, I just thought "man, sucks to be you if you're still a Windows user" and moved on to trying out the latest Ubuntu alpha release and looking for bugs. Much more productive use of my time, and more hurtful to MS as well, because it means Ubuntu will be a better OS if the bugs I find are fixed.

It's useful to know when an entity/organization has tendencies. If Microsoft has a history (and/or a nature) that leads you to expect more shitty behavior from them, you have to be smart and act accordingly.

Hating them for their misbehavior is kind of unreasonable. Having a bad opinion of them without clear reasons (case histories, e.g.) is also irrational. Folks are sometimes driven by bandwagons and general hating, and those are surely diseases.

MS released a server product. They recognized that for it to be as profitable as possible, it needed to support Linux, so they produced the drivers to make that happen.

Result: MS makes more money, Linux is usable on more systems. Everyone's happy.

Obviously MS only cares about the money part, but who cares as long as:1. The code is of sufficient quality. (The reviewers will determine this.)2. There's valid reason to include it. (There is.)and 3. They're not trying to exert control or otherwise screw with the Linux model (they GPLed this code, so they pretty much can't.)

There's a LOT of reasons to fear some of MS' moves, especially when it comes to open source, but in this case, we're simply looking at a business decision that happens to be beneficial to all parties involved, so why not just take the code (assuming it doesn't suck) and move on? There are MS decisions that need to be fought, but I really, really, don't think this one of them.

Hatred of Microsoft is indeed a problem. A healthy mistrust of them and everything they put their stamp on, however, is not only rational but frankly quite prudent. After everything Microsoft has done to this industry, having done so little for it, they have a lot to prove. They have not yet proven it to my satisfaction, or apparently ot a lot of people's..

After all that Microsoft did, does, and will probably always do, the hatred for Microsoft is completely rightful and perfectly founded on those actions.

It's like calling it "a disease" to call a murderer and mass scammer what he is, just because some of it was some time ago, and some of it is still happening, but more or less sneaky.If that someone got what he deserved, then it's acceptable to stop the hatred. But not before that.

I will treat Microsoft for exactly what they are, as long as it takes go give them their rightful punishment.And it's not only Microsoft. By far. MS looks like a joke in the light of criminal giants like Monsanto & the rest chemical industry, the defense industry, RIAA/MPAA, etc. But still, they are close followers.

Inform yourself, before you mod this comment. *Really* inform yourself. There are many lists out there about what Microsoft did.

You're wrong. The hate isn't rightful and deserved if it goes way too far, far beyond the what the actual facts support. It get away from the realm of disciplined intelligent discourse and into fanaticism. Hate in general is not justified as it is not sign a rational state of intellect.

The problem is of course, once you get fanatical prosetlyzing microsoft haters spouting outright misinformation, it actually starts work against backwards against getting any change from MS.

Believe it or not, Microsoft has done a lot to make the computing world better.

Anybody remember color monitors before Windows? It seemed like everybody used a different standard. You had to pick your hardware based on what your software supported. And not all software supported all hardware. Same with printers.

Whatever you may say about Windows, at least it set a standard.

And yes...I am often annoyed/angered/disappointed by some of Microsoft's policies. I often humorously threaten to "quit programming, move to Idaho, and raise potatoes" as a result of Microsoft decisions. My latest sore spot is their decision to lock out hobbyists from kernel mode driver development.
Sometimes, a kernel mode driver is the only way to solve a problem.

Their code was released GPLv2, licensing was never an issue that was discussed by anyone remotely informed.

Now if we want to start arguing over weither or not patent violations could come into play then fine, we can also delve into the whole Embrace Extend Extinguish theory, but at this point we are right back to arguing politics, not technology.

Do you honestly believe the whole open source movement depends on people uniting around a hatred for Microsoft, as opposed to sharing a love for innovation and technology?

As a relatively neutral observer on this forum (my favorite OS was Mac OS 9.2.2 to give you an idea), it seems to me that the Linux community *is* based around hatred for Microsoft. Look at all the paranoid anti-Microsoft loons on this board who won't change their minds even after their greatest idol says they're acting stupid.

Maybe Slashdot isn't representative of the Linux community, but if it's not-- what is?

Maybe Slashdot isn't representative of the Linux community, but if it's not-- what is?

Nothing./. represents nothing more than the/. community. Not the "Linux community" (if there is such a thing), not the OSS community, not even the virgin community, etc.

Quite frankly, Linux is so big and so spread out already, there is no single "community" that covers everyone and everything. There are a lot of communities. But, hey, generalizations are fun and poking fun at "loons" is cute, so why not - pick your label

>Sorry if that sounds kind if "hippy", but saying that the entire FOSS world is based around nothing but hatred for a particular>corporation really cheapens the accomplishments of the people involved.

What Linus was saying is that this is true of *some* people, and that they typically think of themselves as being part of some political movement i.e. "Free Software" as opposed to "Open Source."

Obviously, if everyone was more interested in politics than software like the FS guys are, we wouldn't get anywhere. For this reason, Torvalds and other have advocated Open Source as a pragmatic and non-political alternative to Free Software.

Open Source is essentially an open and cooperative development model with an open license. It is a model focussed on the development of quality software for which source is available for tinkering.

"Free Software" on the other hand has little to do with software at all, but is a political dogma centered around Richard Stallman as supreme leader, focussed on fighting copyright and corporate interests.

Indeed projects organized by the Free Software foundation aren't that open at all, and follow the cathedral model of development. This has historically led to a number of forks such as the GCC and emacs/xemacs forks, and also failed projects like HURD. FSF projects tend to be beset with political infighting... because they are about politics as much as they are about software. Some people are more interested in being "top revolutionary" than writing good code.

I think it's clear the open source people tend to have less patience for that kind of nonsense and that's why projects run on the open model are more successful. That's why Linux succeeded where HURD failed. That's why FSF projects are consistently forking into projects run in the bazaar model. See GCC/LLVM for a more recent example of this.

However, the FSF guys, because they are into politics, love to generate lots of noise. That's why sometimes it seems like they run the show, when in terms of projects and useful code, they are a tiny fraction.

No no no, the is the opportunity for us to say to Microsoft, look it really isn't that bad, is it? You benefit from open source, other people benefit, and it's a model you can profit from as well.

MS is scared of open source because it has been seen as a threat. But what if at the end of all of this, MS realizes that giving people the source code, while selling a product and related support, benefits everyone? It will happen slowly, but they are coming around.

WiX was the first shot, and now they are realizing that helping others helps them. So maybe somewhere down the line, we can get for example explorer.exe source code. Or something else that they give away free - so we can customize and fix bugs instead of whining that it sucks.

If the "average open source developer" is supposed to hate microsoft, and not evaluate anything simply because it's Microsoft, we're going to have some very out of touch projects and non-interoperable software and an overall loss of quality.

Microsoft is an easy target; at times they appear to actually strive to be one. Nevertheless, geeks are supposed to be about tech, not religion.:)

How about "freedom", "law", and "standards"? Does that count as "religion"? If I want to partake in the usage and development of new technology, should I give up a part of my freedom in order to do so, because I'm a geek?
Sure, MS can't cut off my air supply or electricity (yet), but they can cut off, or change, or add draconian conditions to the platform I'm working on, as long as I'm working on it.

Check out this Silverlight stuff -- it's great isn't it? It's cross-platform and everything. What happens

So why the mod up to +5 with no working link to support the assertion?

Why the Fastest Chip Didn't Win" (Business Week, April 28, 1997) states that when Digital engineers noticed the similarities between VMS and NT, they brought their observations to senior management. Rather than suing, Digital cut a deal with Microsoft. In the summer of 1995, Digital announced Affinity for OpenVMS, a program that required Microsoft to help train Digital NT technicians, help promote NT and Open-VMS as two pieces of a three-tiered client/server networking solution, and promise to maintain NT support for the Alpha processor. Microsoft also paid Digital between 65 million and 100 million dollars.

Interestingly, throughout the 1990s, Digital introduced many NT features to VMS, and Microsoft has added VMS developments to NT. For example, VMS featured native clustering support in 1984, and 64-bit memory and system APIs in 1996.Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story [archive.org] [1998]

Digital began spinning off bits and pieces of the corporation in 1992 - the last remnants going to Compaq in 1998. Digital Equipment Corporation [wikipedia.org] You could argue that when the VMS team abandoned ship, Microsoft was there with a lifeboat.

GP is talking about the fact that Dave Cutler, the dude who architected VMS at DEC later went to work for Microsoft and ended up architecting Windows NT. Either GP is ignorant of this fact, or they were being intentionally misleading and trying to imply that someone at Microsoft stole something from VMS. Which isn't true. (unless you count Cutler's freely choosing to change jobs "stealing" somehow.)

And before the deluge of, "OMG, Cutler stole IP," or whatever, consider that the bulk of Cutler's career has been... Designing and implementing OSes. How many people in the world do that? It'd be like New Line Cinemas suing, say, Paramount if Peter Jackson went to make movies for them claiming, "These are too much like our epic movies."

In April 1975, DIGITAL began a hardware project, code named Star, to design on a 32-bit virtual address extension to its PDP-11. In June 1975, Dave together with Dick Hustvedt, and Peter Lippman were appointed the technical project leaders for the software project, code-named Starlet, to develop a totally new operating system for the Star family of processors. These two projects were tightly integrated from the beginning. The three technical leaders of the Starlet project together with three technical leaders of the Star project formed the "Blue Ribbon Committee" at DIGITAL who produced the fifth design evolution for the programs. The design featured simplifications to the memory management and process scheduling schemes of the earlier proposals and the architecture was accepted. The Star and Starlet projects culminated in the development of the VAX-11/780 superminicomputer and the VAX/VMS operating system, respectively.

DIGITAL began working on RISC technology in 1986 and Cutler, who was then working in DEC's DECWest facility in Bellevue, Washington, was elected to head Prism, a project to develop the company's RISC machine. Its operating system, code named Mica, would embody the next generation of design principles and have a compatibility layer for UNIX and VMS.

Dave took what he learned at D.E.C. and "brought it over to Microsoft."

Yes. He changed employers. Just like millions of people do every day. Just like you probably have several times.

Microsoft wooed him over, paid him extra, and got W/NT (note the letters are one higher than VMS).

Microsoft-hating is a disease that you catch from doing business with Microsoft.

Modded funny, but insightful is more like it. If someone were to force Torvalds to do all his coding on a Windows box using Visual Studio and Visual Sourcesafe, he'd pick up at least a minor case of Microsoft-hate.

Microsoft created the disease. Microsoft is the cancer on software--and I'm sure we all have heard Microsoft claim Linux is a cancer on software.

I used to be like you. I really cared about all the drama that surrounds Microsoft vs Linux and then later, in my mid-twenties and continuing into my thirties, I stopped giving a shit. Why? Because it just doesn't matter anymore. I suggest you listen to Linus' words and take heed. The man is a visionary. He wants you to stop concentrating on the bullshit and start concentrating on what matters--supporting what you want to support.

I can definitely drink to that and I think I will. Bell's Lager FTW. Cheers.